CRM-M-37082 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT (229) SUNIL KUMAR @ KALU STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana **** MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL) 1. The under Section 483 of “BNSS”) for grant of 25.10.2025 registered under Sections Psychotropic Substances Act Pinjore, District Panchkula. 2026 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 06.05.2026. 2. As per the allegations, on 25th October 2025, on receipt of a secret information to the effect that the accused Daulat Ram was engaged in the business of sale of narcotic substances, and on that very day he, along with one of his accomplices, was motorbike and could information to be true, a raiding party was formed. the above-named Daulat Ram, along with co 37082-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of decision SUNIL KUMAR @ KALU Versus HARYANA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Sandeep Saini, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana **** MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL) The instant one is the second petition Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha for grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No. registered under Sections 20(C) and 29 of the Psychotropic Substances Act (for short “NDPS Act Pinjore, District Panchkula. His previous petition bearing CRM 2026 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 06.05.2026. As per the allegations, on 25th October 2025, on receipt of a secret information to the effect that the accused Daulat Ram was engaged in the business of sale of narcotic substances, and on that very day he, along with one of his accomplices, was going to motorbike and could be apprehended with contraband information to be true, a raiding party was formed. named Daulat Ram, along with co IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-37082-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 02.09.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana petition preferred by the petitioner Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.469 dated 20(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and NDPS Act”) at Police Station His previous petition bearing CRM-M-8097- 2026 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 06.05.2026. As per the allegations, on 25th October 2025, on receipt of a secret information to the effect that the accused Daulat Ram was engaged in the business of sale of narcotic substances, and on that very day he, along to Shahpur via Baddi road on a be apprehended with contraband and believing the secret information to be true, a raiding party was formed. Barricade was laid and named Daulat Ram, along with co-accused Karamjit Singh, was by the petitioner Sanhita, 2023 (for short 469 dated and ”) at Police Station - As per the allegations, on 25th October 2025, on receipt of a secret information to the effect that the accused Daulat Ram was engaged in the business of sale of narcotic substances, and on that very day he, along Shahpur via Baddi road on a elieving the secret Barricade was laid and accused Karamjit Singh, was AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.03 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-37082 apprehended. Recovery of 34 kgs 580 grams of conscious possession. They were formally arrested. On interrogation, they suffered disclosure statements on the basis of which the petitioner was nominated as accused on the allegations that contraband. He was arrested on 28.10.2025. Investigation now stands concluded. 3. It falsely implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of the accused, which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. He was not named in the FIR There is no material on record to connect him with the subject offenc investigation. His antecedents are clean. With these broad submissions, it is urged that he deserves to be extended benefit of bail. 4. Per against the petitioner are serious in nature. One of the co Balender Singh, is yet to be apprehended. touch with the co period, as many as 17 calls had been exchanged between them, which show the complicity of the petitioner in the crime. It is chances of peti bail, and therefore it is urged that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 37082-2026 (O&M) 2 ed. Recovery of 34 kgs 580 grams of conscious possession. They were formally arrested. On interrogation, they suffered disclosure statements on the basis of which the petitioner was nominated as accused on the allegations that contraband. He was arrested on 28.10.2025. Investigation now stands It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of the accused, which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. He was not named in the FIR. No recovery has been effected at his instance is no material on record to connect him with the subject offences. He is in custody since long. . His continued detention would not serve any useful purpose is antecedents are clean. With these broad submissions, it is urged that he deserves to be extended benefit of bail. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. One of the co nder Singh, is yet to be apprehended. The petitioner was in continuous touch with the co-accused Daulat Ram through phone, and during the relevant period, as many as 17 calls had been exchanged between them, which show the complicity of the petitioner in the crime. It is chances of petitioner’s committing similar offenc bail, and therefore it is urged that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. ed. Recovery of 34 kgs 580 grams of ganja was effected from their conscious possession. They were formally arrested. On interrogation, they suffered disclosure statements on the basis of which the petitioner was nominated as accused on the allegations that he was the supplier of the contraband. He was arrested on 28.10.2025. Investigation now stands is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of the co- accused, which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. He recovery has been effected at his instance. is no material on record to connect him with the commission of the custody since long. He is not required for further continued detention would not serve any useful purpose. is antecedents are clean. With these broad submissions, it is urged that he , learned State counsel has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. One of the co-accused, namely The petitioner was in continuous gh phone, and during the relevant period, as many as 17 calls had been exchanged between them, which show the complicity of the petitioner in the crime. It is further argued that there are committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail, and therefore it is urged that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. was effected from their conscious possession. They were formally arrested. On interrogation, they suffered disclosure statements on the basis of which the petitioner was he was the supplier of the contraband. He was arrested on 28.10.2025. Investigation now stands is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been - accused, which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. He . commission of the is not required for further . is antecedents are clean. With these broad submissions, it is urged that he , learned State counsel has argued that the allegations accused, namely The petitioner was in continuous gh phone, and during the relevant period, as many as 17 calls had been exchanged between them, which show argued that there are fit of AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.03 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-37082 5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. 6. The petitioner which has been recovered from the co effected from him. He is in custody since long. He was nominated on the basis of disclosure statement of the co Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC the disclosure statements made under Section 67 of NDPS Act, are inadmissible in evidence unless corroborated by independent material. While the veracity of the disclosure statement against the petitioner will during the course of trial, however, at this stage, it cannot be ignored that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner. 7. Reliance can also be placed upon the observations made by this Court in Anshul Sardana Vs. State of Punjab, 200 wherein it was observed that a confession made by a co Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inherently a very weak piece of evidence and such statement cannot form the sole basis for conviction of an individual and must be scrutinized evidence. The final evidentiary value and admissibility of the disclosure statement made by a co is to be adjudicated during the course of tri principles of law. 37082-2026 (O&M) 3 This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. The petitioner is alleged to be the supplier which has been recovered from the co-accused effected from him. He is in custody since long. He was nominated on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused. In Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1, it was observed by Hon’ble Apex Court that the disclosure statements made under Section 67 of NDPS Act, are inadmissible in evidence unless corroborated by independent material. While the veracity of the disclosure statement against the petitioner will during the course of trial, however, at this stage, it cannot be ignored that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner. Reliance can also be placed upon the observations made by this Anshul Sardana Vs. State of Punjab, 200 wherein it was observed that a confession made by a co Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inherently a very weak piece of evidence and such statement cannot form the sole basis for conviction of an individual and must be scrutinized with utmost caution in conjunction with other substantive evidence. The final evidentiary value and admissibility of the disclosure statement made by a co-accused falls within the domain of the trial Court and is to be adjudicated during the course of trial in accordance with established principles of law. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned is alleged to be the supplier of the contraband, accused. No recovery has been effected from him. He is in custody since long. He was nominated on the accused. In Tofan Singh Vs. State of , it was observed by Hon’ble Apex Court that the disclosure statements made under Section 67 of NDPS Act, are inadmissible in evidence unless corroborated by independent material. While the veracity of the disclosure statement against the petitioner will be tested during the course of trial, however, at this stage, it cannot be ignored that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner. Reliance can also be placed upon the observations made by this Anshul Sardana Vs. State of Punjab, 2005:PHHC:004198, wherein it was observed that a confession made by a co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inherently a very weak piece of evidence and such statement cannot form the sole basis for conviction of an individual and with utmost caution in conjunction with other substantive evidence. The final evidentiary value and admissibility of the disclosure accused falls within the domain of the trial Court and al in accordance with established This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned , . No recovery has been effected from him. He is in custody since long. He was nominated on the Tofan Singh Vs. State of , it was observed by Hon’ble Apex Court that the disclosure statements made under Section 67 of NDPS Act, are inadmissible in evidence unless corroborated by independent material. While be tested during the course of trial, however, at this stage, it cannot be ignored that no Reliance can also be placed upon the observations made by this , accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inherently a very weak piece of evidence and such statement cannot form the sole basis for conviction of an individual and with utmost caution in conjunction with other substantive evidence. The final evidentiary value and admissibility of the disclosure accused falls within the domain of the trial Court and al in accordance with established AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.03 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-37082 8. The petitioner is in custody since on record, at this stage, to connect the petitioner either with the subject crime or to show that he was connected with the co relevant time. The trial will take considerable time to conclude as none out of twenty one prosecution witnesses call detail record is concerned, in the absence of any transcript of the same, it cannot be stated at this stage that any conversation had taken place between the petitioner and co Keeping in view the discussion as made above, this Court is of the considered opinion that a case for release of the petitioner on bail is made out. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing p bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned. 9. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. 10. Since the main petition has been any, is rendered infructuous. 02.09.2026 Amit Sharma 37082-2026 (O&M) 4 The petitioner is in custody since on record, at this stage, to connect the petitioner either with the subject crime or to show that he was connected with the co relevant time. The trial will take considerable time to conclude as none out of prosecution witnesses, has been examined so far. call detail record is concerned, in the absence of any transcript of the same, it be stated at this stage that any conversation had taken place between the petitioner and co-accused Daulat Ram pertaining to the contraband. view the discussion as made above, this Court is of the considered opinion that a case for release of the petitioner on bail is made out. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal bonds as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. Since the main petition has been any, is rendered infructuous. (MANISHA BATRA) Whether speaking/reasoned:- Whether reportable:- Yes/No The petitioner is in custody since 28.10.2025. There is nothing on record, at this stage, to connect the petitioner either with the subject crime or to show that he was connected with the co-accused in any manner at the relevant time. The trial will take considerable time to conclude as none out of has been examined so far. So far as the call detail record is concerned, in the absence of any transcript of the same, it be stated at this stage that any conversation had taken place between accused Daulat Ram pertaining to the contraband. view the discussion as made above, this Court is of the considered opinion that a case for release of the petitioner on bail is made out. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be ersonal bonds as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no Since the main petition has been allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE - Yes/No . There is nothing on record, at this stage, to connect the petitioner either with the subject crime in any manner at the relevant time. The trial will take considerable time to conclude as none out of So far as the call detail record is concerned, in the absence of any transcript of the same, it be stated at this stage that any conversation had taken place between accused Daulat Ram pertaining to the contraband. view the discussion as made above, this Court is of the considered opinion that a case for release of the petitioner on bail is made out. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be ersonal bonds as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no pending application, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.03 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.